Teopista & Jesus Holdings Ltd and Another v ABC Capital Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0316 of 2023)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
Held that applicants seeking leave to appear and defend a summary suit must show a bona fide triable issue and attach a draft defence. Where applicants dispute the outstanding debt amount but fail to attach a draft defence, their denial is a mere denial without genuine defence. Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed; judgment entered for the plaintiff in the summary suit.
Outcome
Application dismissed; judgment entered for plaintiff in underlying summary suit
Facts
The respondent bank instituted a summary suit seeking recovery of UGX 2,142,368,507 arising from credit facilities extended to the first applicant company (UGX 1,768,204,821) and the second applicant (UGX 500,000,000), guaranteed by the second and third applicants and secured by mortgage. The facilities were restructured in August 2021 with a six-month interest moratorium. The borrowers defaulted, and a notice of default was issued on 29 April 2022 requiring payment of UGX 321,084,017 within 45 working days. Demand letters followed in October 2022 for UGX 1,646,308,692. The applicants sought leave to appear and defend, alleging discrepancies in the outstanding amount, unconscionable terms, lack of independent advice to the second applicant as an illiterate person, and that a parallel suit (HCCS No. 0846 of 2022) was pending challenging the legality of the credit facility transactions.
Issues
- Whether the Applicants disclosed sufficient grounds to merit the grant of leave to appear and defend the suit?
- What remedies are available?
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Judgment entered against the Defendants in Civil Suit No. 0122 of 2013 in the sum claimed in the Plaint.
- Costs of the application and Civil Suit No. 0122 of 2013 awarded to the Plaintiff.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (5)
- Souza Figuerido & Co Ltd v Moorings Hotel Co Ltd (1959) EA 425
- Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
- Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
- Uganda Commercial Bank v Mukoome Agencies [1982] HCB 22
- Post Bank (U) Ltd v Ssozi (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2015)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.